It's time to have a grown up conversation around free speech...
Free speech was back in the headlines. This time it was about the recent move by Zuckerberg's Meta (owns Facebook, Instagram and Whatsapp) removing its content moderation and moving to community notes.
As with all news it has received a polarised response. It is either ‘bowing to Trump’ by the left or ‘back to freedom of expression’ on the right.
We speak of free speech in terms of absolutes, but in reality there are degrees. We parody the content that North Koreans see that is clearly heavily censored, but do we apply that critical eye to our information sources?
What are the limits of free speech?
Free speech is the right to express opinions, ideas, and information without censorship. That’s the basic idea which has almost unanimous support. However, like all things, there are varying degrees of “free speech”.
Even the quoted authorities of free speech had limits. John Stuart Mills in "On Liberty" restricted speech if it caused harm (not mere offence) to others. The 1st amendment which protected key freedoms within the US constitution had limitations of incitement, defamation, obscenity and threats.
So even at the heart of freedom of expression there are sensible limits.
What are the debated limits of free speech?
It's clear that there is strong support of restricting illegal content that might lead to crime, but beyond that, X, Meta and co have chosen to allow pretty much all other content on. Importantly the onus is now on the community to police it (i.e. encouraging people to spend more time engaging with misinformation).
Censored? | Examples | Moderation benefits | Reasons not to moderate |
Crime | Inciting violence, promoting the exploitation of children, drug trafficking. | You do not want law-breakers to be freely using large forums. | How do you handle the fact that different countries have different laws. How do you deal with something like blasphemy? |
Defamation/Lies | Accusing someone falsely of doing something maliciously. | Lying is manipulation, and can bias people. | Who decides on speculation and or which version of the truth is used to check against. |
Exaggeration | Describe in unjustifiably extreme language | Emotionally charged language can be misleading | It is very hard to police people's description of events |
Ignorance | Make false claims ignorantly. | It is misleading people. | Who are we to correct people? |
Truths that might challenge a national drive | Alert people to the risks of the COVID vaccine. | The counter-narrative might dissuade people or give them grounds not to participate. | How can you censor the truth? Surely the principle is that for people to make a health decision they should be aware of all considerations. |
Rudeness or name calling | Swearing or name calling | Childish name-calling should be removed to increase the tone of the debate. | We do not have the right to people's freedom of expression. |
What has happened to X and will likely to happen to all unmoderated spaces?
Positives:
1) The ability to express yourself without censorship will go up.
2) The probability that "the truth" about a situation is out there will go up
Negatives
1) Algorithms are likely to promote misinformation as they will receive a lot of positive engagement from those who want it to be true or trying tp push a story, and negative engagement from those who wish to debunk it.
2) The probability that extreme views become dominant is much higher.
3) The chance you could be manipulated or biased by content is higher.
What's in it for the companies?
Meta and X, I would expect are delighted by this push:
1) It reduces the burden on them to moderate content
2) It decreases the opportunities for governments to pressure them to remove content, as was alleged about the Biden government by Mark Zuckerberg during COVID.
3) It allows them to market themselves as "free speech absolutists" and drive more content onto their sites decreasing the chance of a fragmentation of social media channels.
What do I make of it?
It comes down to why you are using the site. They seem to occupy space in some conflicting places in people's lives:
Entertainment
Information
Generating community
Self-expression
The removal of content moderation will undoubtedly improve the entertainment value, as more punchy material will be allowed out there. It will allow communities to communicate their beliefs to each other without the need to be fact-checked. Finally it will foster great self-expression.
But as a decision-maker, who is looking for information on contested topics, I think it will be a great source of misinformation, bias and it will be harder to separate the signal for the noise i.e. this will be a place I am less likely to visit for information.
Is there a way to use these platforms whilst minimising the risk of misinformation?
I have friends who suggest they are able to use these platforms for real-time useful information. I will firstly convey their tactics and then offer why I am skeptical.
"Safe" tactics on social media:
1) Some niche information areas are only accessible via social media. Focus your feed on those areas.
2) Only use the "following" tab, this allows you great control over what you see.
3) Limit use to a few larger accounts, ideally that have a real person behind it
Why am I skeptical even these are net useful?
Even the “following” tab has an algorithm that decides the order in which you see the content. Those accounts which wish to appear high on your algorithm must ‘play the game’ by making it more extreme to get good coverage.
Many accounts are anonymous or not the person they say they are, leaving you open to accounts that start sensibly and move away towards more extreme ideologies
The sheer volume of content that might be on the same subject will influence you through availability bias. We weight things that we see more frequently, so we can think something trivial is important if you are repeatedly shown it and or it is sensationalised.
Overall, I feel that this tension between self-expression and community on one side and information ratio on the other, means I expect to see more fragmentation. I expect to see more openly left and right wing platforms like Bluesky and Truth Social, but also see value in moderated spaces that try and increase the information ratio.
So what?
Free speech absolutism is a myth: John Stuart Mill and the U.S. First Amendment recognised limits, such as harm, incitement, defamation, and threats, underscoring that even fundamental rights have sensible boundaries.
Challenges of Unmoderated Spaces: Platforms put the responsibility of policing misinformation on users which amplifies risk of misinformation, dominance of extreme views, and manipulation.
Mitigating Misinformation: Strategies include focusing on niche information, using the "following" tabs, and relying on credible accounts. However, skepticism remains about algorithms and the volume of sensationalized content influencing biases.
Next week I will be discussing "Blogs for 2025". Until then, please sign up to receive the blog directly to your email at Blog | Deciders.
Comments